State v. Parton

A jury
convicted the Defendant, Kevin Todd Parton, of driving with a
blood alcohol content of 0.08 percent or more ("DUI per
se") and driving under the influence of an intoxicant
("DUI"). The trial court merged the convictions and
sentenced the Defendant to eleven months and twenty-nine
days, with ten days to be served in confinement. The
Defendant appeals, asserting that the trial court erred in
denying a motion for a mistrial, that the trial court erred
in admitting the results of the blood alcohol test, and that
the arrest warrant was defective. After a thorough review of
the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

John
Everett Williams, P.J., delivered the opinion of the court,
in which Robert W. Wedemeyer and Robert L. Holloway, Jr.,
JJ., joined.

OPINION

JOHN
EVERETT WILLIAMS, PRESIDING JUDGE

FACTUAL
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The
Defendant was stopped after law enforcement observed him
driving erratically in the early morning hours of October 11,
2015. After performing poorly on field sobriety tests, he was
arrested and consented to a blood draw, and testing revealed
a blood alcohol content of 0.183 percent.

On
October 11, 2015, a magistrate issued three arrest warrants
for the Defendant, charging him with DUI, a roadway lane
violation, and failure to provide evidence of compliance with
the financial responsibility law. The sworn affidavit signed
by Officer Nina Hummel and attached to the warrant for DUI
recited the circumstances of the offense as allegedly
committed by the Defendant. However, the sworn affidavits
attached to the other two arrest warrants included no facts
supporting the charged offenses; instead, those affidavits
contained only facts regarding an unrelated domestic
altercation occurring on the same night and involving a
defendant whose last name was "Barton." The parties
noted at trial that the State acknowledged these arrest
warrants were defective and that it had dismissed the
accompanying charges prior to the grand jury proceedings. The
Defendant was bound over on July 18, 2016, and he was
subsequently indicted on December 13, 2016, for one count of
DUI per se and one count of DUI.

The
Defendant filed a "Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to T.C.A.
40-2-102," alleging that the State had failed to
commence proceedings within the statute of limitations
because the defects in the arrest warrants for the dismissed
charges rendered the remaining arrest warrant for DUI
likewise void and because the indictment was not returned
prior to the expiration of the limitations period. The motion
was heard on two separate dates, and the parties agreed to
stipulate regarding what the magistrate's testimony would
have been about the circumstances surrounding the signing of
the arrest warrants. The hearings are not a part of the
record on appeal. An undated stipulation was filed in the
record after the hearings and after the trial court's
ruling, and the stipulation reflected that the magistrate did
not recall signing the arrest warrants, that he believed
incorrect affidavits were attached to two of the arrest
warrants by mistake, and that he would normally read the
narrative "carefully" for the principal charge - in
this case the DUI - and then "move[] on to
'ancillary' charges."

The
trial court found that the arrest warrant was at most
voidable due to the defects in the other arrest warrants
contemporaneously signed by the magistrate. Because it found
that the arrest warrant was facially valid at the time the
indictment was returned and that the Defendant was before the
court "as a consequence of the action" of the grand
jury, the trial court denied the motion to dismiss.

The
Defendant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence,
and we give a brief summary of the facts presented at trial
as pertinent to the issues on appeal. Officer Hummel
testified that on October 11, 2015, soon after midnight, she
observed the Defendant's car driving outside its lane,
coming to a complete stop at a green light, veering off the
roadway, and driving with the tires rubbing against the curb.
Officer Hummel stopped the Defendant, who smelled of alcohol,
acknowledged that he had been drinking, and failed a field
sobriety test. Officer Hummel found two open cans of beer
under the driver's seat of the vehicle. A video of the
stop was introduced into evidence.

Officer
Hummel arrested the Defendant, and he consented to have his
blood drawn. The Defendant waited while another man, who had
likewise been arrested for DUI by Officer Hummel and her
partner, was having his blood drawn. Officer Hummel testified
that she observed the phlebotomist draw the Defendant's
blood and place it into a vial and kit. Officer Hummel sealed
the kit and placed it into the "evidence box for blood
collection" at the Knox County Detention Facility. The
video of the Defendant's arrest introduced into evidence
largely shows the Defendant's blood being drawn,
packaged, and sealed, and it shows Officer Hummel initialing
the sealed box.

During
a jury-out hearing, the trial court ruled that the Defendant
could cross-examine Officer Hummel regarding the mistaken
affidavits attached to the dismissed charges to demonstrate
that her paperwork may have been prone to mistakes. The
affidavits were introduced into evidence and read into the
record. Officer Hummel acknowledged that she had sworn under
oath that the Defendant had failed to maintain his lane ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.